Hi

No, this is not the world as I would like it to be. It is the world we live in now and are likely to live in for the foreseeable future.

If we are looking at it purely as a timing reference the outlook is not real good. Best guess about 1 in 1,000. I’m probably estimating
that on the generous side. If there is some other magic use for the thing (or a couple dozen other uses) that might change the
equation. Right now those other uses are not very obvious.

Why the lousy outlook:

1. The way a system like this gets funded is for it to have  a lot of users. It might also get
   funded if some crazy black project needs it. That’s not happening with Loran. Loran died in
   the first place due to a lack of users.
2. For a system like this to have a lot of users, you need to pass regulations requiring it’s use.
   That may seem odd, but that’s the way it works. Loran co-existed with GPS for a long time.
   GPS was less reliable back then than it is today.  Using Loran for timing was a very rare thing
   outside a handful of labs.
3. To regulate it into major systems, it needs to have at least a country wide coverage and
   more likely a bit more than that. Without that there isn’t enough of a timing market to address.
   You need to retrofit it into every cell tower in the country (for instance).
4. Loran getting into buildings from a single site (even fairly close) … not so much if they are
   full of switching power supplies, you have a problem. You need to have many Loran transmitters. Cell timing
   is moving out of the “edge” and into the central hubs. That means buildings full of switchers.
5. Tying multiple time sources into a system costs big money. If you only have two clocks, how
   do you decide which one is wrong? Not an easy question to answer. That money has to come
   from somebody. Nobody wants to pay. The cell carriers have never been excited about
   investment that does not immediately result in more customers.
6. There are multiple competing “for pay” backup timing systems. Adding another one to
   the mix is pretty hard to justify. Even more so if you can “steal” timing off of one and
   not pay for it. That would be the case with an eLoran that works with all our old gear.
7. Like it or not, justified or not, cost effective (not), the world is hung up on space based
   systems. There is no excitement in 1950’s technology.
8. Loran for exact timing has some major issues with propagation delay. If your goal
   is the same as the system specs ( < 100 ns) that’s going to be a really tough nut to
   crack. Do they need < 100 ns? It’s in the spec …

Will they keep studying it as long as they can get funding for the study? Of course they will.
How long will people keep pitching in for that funding … could be years. Five to ten year
studies that go nowhere are not at all uncommon.

Right now we have multiple broadcast time sources running 24/7 at various frequencies
with various coverage zones. As far as I know none of them are tied into major systems.
That’s just the way it is, and it’s nothing new. Even in military systems, multiple time sources
into a system is a very rare thing. In commercial systems …

Again, I’m not arguing that this is an ideal world.

Bob

On 02/06/2017 09:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Yes, from the perspective of myself and my fellow transhumanists, the
world is quite primitive in all aspects.  I yearn for the day when
singularity will take over and our primitive species is relegated to
wildlife status.  But I digress, as usual.

Makes sense---I was doubtful that it would be successful in non-niche
commercial areas, considering the different priorities and philosophy
(or lack thereof) in mind by the manufacturers and userbase.

Yes, WWV/WWVH, WWVB, and CHU, within North America.  Very sad to hear
that---fusing standards and external sources of diverse characteristics
(MTBF, Allan deviation, propagation mode, sociopolitical considerations,
etc.) is the central approach of my project.

WWVB altered the signal format in '12, rendering phase locked-loop-based
receivers into metal paperweights (i.e., the remaining lab units used as
a fallback), and apparently there is no replacement nor retrofit, like a
Costas Loop (the only receiver I have found is a Meinberg USB unit,
which very well might not even work with the new format; I have in fact
submitted multiple quote requests, to no avail).  At the very least
millions of domestic and personal radio clocks use it (along with a
couple other analogs in some other parts of the world, like DCF77), not
that this approach is remotely optimal.

As for WWV/WWVH and CHU, it's quite a sad situation---I have only
counted 1--2 registered NTP servers that actually use at least one
channel, despite the fact that: 1. NTP has decoding modules built-in for
all these signals; 2. the equipment setup is typically simpler and
cheaper compared to dealing with mounting a GPS antenna on the roof and
interfacing with PPS, esp. if one uses a Chinese $6.50 incl. shipping HF
receiver off eBay; 3. it's a decent, and essentially only (not counting
CDMA---don't get me started on that!), external reference fallback to
GNSS.  I actually had this crazy idea of starting a Kickstarter campaign
to educate the masses about time transfer resiliency, and to launch a
contest that would supply good public NTP server operators with free HF
receivers.  These stations could very easily suffer the same fate as
LORAN-C under the Obama administration, unless a vocal userbase is built up.

-Ruslan

Hi

A very practical contribution one could make would be to enhance the drivers
for the radio based systems. Propagation is a big deal with any of the radio
setups. Loran is no exception to that. Teaching the NTP drivers when not to
use the data and how to compare data is a do-able thing. It’s just that nobody
has ever bothered to do it. Coming up with some simple to use tools to estimate
the errors and config them in is likely the only practical way to do it.

Bob

Yo Bob!

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:38:52 -0500
Bob Camp kb8tq@n1k.org wrote:

The NTPsec team would love to work with anyone that has a device
that could use an improved NTP driver.

NTPsec has done a lot of recent work on tools.  We are open to any
suggestions or requests that people may make.

RGDS
GARY

Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
gem@rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

    Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin

Hi

P

I have absolutely no doubt of that.The issue is not being able to do
the driver and get it accepted. The issue is that there is …errr …
work involved. :)

Bob